Talk:Stonehenge road tunnel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the UK Roads WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the UK's road network. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
Can somebody please find out if a final decision has been made on the plans und update if required. 82.38.56.54 00:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- Done Richard B 21:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Inspector Michael Ellison's report
Who is this person? For what agency does he work? What is his authority? It's important to provide context for the reader.
Also, the PDF cited as his report is nearly empty. Suggest either removing it (and therefore the unsourced quote) or improving the citation. John Reid 01:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I have improved the citation. Richard Taylor 20:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bias
This article is biased heavily against the subject. For example: A tunnel or new road would be an irreversible interference and destruction of a site and monument that we, have no right to damage. This is an opinion and although I tend to share it, that does not make it a fact. Our commitment to neutrality and verifiability excludes such naked statements of opinion. This must be rephrased as a statement of the fact of an opinion held by some person or group -- and must be sourced. John Reid 01:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
An indication of bias, or at best slipshod writing, is that the two quotes from the public inquiry report, said to represent the inspector's views, are highly selective. The first, saying that sacrifice of archaeological remains etc would more than offset the tunnel benefits, comes not from the inspector at all, but from an objector to the scheme. The second, noting expediency, refers only to the line of the route, not the design, which was the major source of contention. These need to be addressed. 85.211.76.144 (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite
I have rewritten the article to be more manual of style compliant, add a lot more references and make it more neutral. I hope that this is an improvement. What I would like to do is expand the details on the alternatives and find references where there are none so far. Does anyone know of a good source for the alternative routes (I seem to remember 4 or 5 major proposals for the A303 being moved away or tunnelled)? Regan123 02:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK I have removed this and the resultant traffic congestion have resulted in The Guardian naming it one of the country's most congested roads as I cannot despite extensive searching find a reference. I have referenced the rest that I can.Regan123 18:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Categories
Given that the proposal has been completely dropped, most of the categories seen misleading. Maybe a new category for former proposals is needed? --86.157.186.247 (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
